Women scientists author fewer invited commentaries in medical journals than men

October 23, 2019

Science Daily/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Women scientists were 21% less likely to author invited commentaries in medical journals during a five-year period than men with similar scientific expertise, seniority, and publication metrics, according to a new study led by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and in collaboration with Elsevier. They found that the disparity was larger for women who were further progressed in their careers, reaching as high as 40% for the most senior authors.

In medical journals, publication of an invited commentary is a recognition of expertise and can raise an author's profile.

"I was genuinely surprised by the size of the gender gap we found," said first author Emma Thomas, a doctoral student in the Department of Biostatistics. "As a young female scientist, I hoped that we might achieve gender parity in authorship of invited articles naturally as more women progressed to the top of the scientific pipeline. Our results suggest that may not be the case."

The study will be published online in JAMA Network Open on October 23, 2019.

The researchers analyzed data on all invited commentaries published in English-language medical journals from 2013 through 2017, made available by Elsevier from its Scopus database. The researchers compared the gender of each "case" -- authors of invited commentaries -- to the gender of a group of "controls" -- other researchers who had similar scientific expertise to the case author, identified through text mining of their published abstracts. The final dataset included 43,235 cases across 2,459 journals.

The researchers found that female researchers were approximately 21% less likely than their male peers to publish an invited commentary. The gender disparity was larger for researchers who had been actively publishing for longer. Overall, just 23% of invited commentaries in the dataset had female corresponding authors.

"These findings challenge the common assumption that gender disparities in authorship of prestigious scientific articles exist because there are fewer women with sufficient experience and expertise to write these articles," said senior author Francesca Dominici, Clarence James Gamble Professor of Biostatistics, Population, and Data Science and co-director of the Harvard Data Science Initiative. "Our results also show that women's voices are not heard as often as men's. This lack of diversity in perspectives can hamper the progress of health research, since diversity of thought is a key driver of innovation."

The authors suggest that journals could expand and diversify their pool of commentary writers by using text mining software to identify researchers with relevant expertise who might not otherwise have been considered.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191023172110.htm

Men are still more likely than women to be perceived as leaders

Despite progress, gender gap in leadership persists

August 9, 2018

Science Daily/University at Buffalo

Women hold just 26 percent of executive-level positions in S&P 500 companies -- and sadly that is no accident, according to a new study.

The study, which was made available online in March ahead of publication in the August print edition of Personnel Psychology, found that, on average, men are more likely than women to emerge as leaders.

The research team -- led by doctoral student Katie Badura and Emily Grijalva, PhD, assistant professor of organization and human resources in the UB School of Management -- aggregated 59 years of research, encompassing more than 19,000 participants and 136 studies from lab, business and classroom settings.

They discovered that although the gender gap has narrowed in recent decades, it still persists.

"As a society, we've made progress toward gender equality, but clearly we're not quite there," Badura says. "Our results are consistent with the struggle many organizations face today to increase diversity in their leadership teams."

The researchers primarily attribute the gender gap to societal pressures that contribute to gender differences in personality traits. For example, men tend to be more assertive and dominant, whereas women tend to be more communal, cooperative and nurturing. As a result, men are more likely to participate and voice their opinions during group discussions, and be perceived by others as leaderlike.

"We found showing sensitivity and concern for others -- stereotypically feminine traits -- made someone less likely to be seen as a leader," Grijalva says. "However, it's those same characteristics that make leaders effective. Thus, because of this unconscious bias against communal traits, organizations may unintentionally select the wrong people for leadership roles, choosing individuals who are loud and confident but lack the ability to support their followers' development and success."

While group size and participants' ages did not affect the gender gap, the study found the length of time participants spent together was an important factor in whether men or women emerged as leaders. The longer a group spent together, the less gender influenced who emerged as the group's leader.

"The gender gap was strongest during the first 20 minutes people were together, similar to an initial job interview, but weakened after more than one interaction," Grijalva says. "During the hiring process, organizations should conduct multiple interviews to reduce gender bias and ensure they're hiring the best applicant."

For managers, the researchers suggest promoting the value of communal behaviors in performance evaluations, prompting quieter individuals to share their ideas and being mindful of any unconscious biases you or your staff may have.

"In the Obama White House, female staffers adopted a strategy of amplifying one another's comments during meetings and giving credit to the individual who said it first, to ensure that women's voices were being heard," Badura says. "Tactics like this help the most qualified individuals stand out and emerge into leadership roles -- regardless of gender."

The project was partially supported through a grant from the University at Buffalo Gender Institute.

Badura and Grijalva conducted the study with Daniel A. Newman, professor of psychology and labor and employment relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Thomas Taiyi Yan, PhD student, University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business; and Gahyun Jeon, postdoctoral research associate, Northwestern University.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180809144524.htm

New survey finds 75 percent of Americans think discrimination still an issue for women

Only three in 10 consider Hillary Clinton's gender to be a significant obstacle for her campaign

August 31, 2016

Science Daily/NORC at the University of Chicago

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's historic nomination as the first woman presidential candidate of a major political party in the US, women continue to face obstacles in politics and the workplace, according to an American national poll. Three-quarters of Americans think there is at least some discrimination against women in this country, although just as many say it has decreased over the past generation.

"The impact of the country's first female nominee is perceived differently across the electorate including how Clinton's gender will impact her chances of being elected and what the long-term effects will be on gender discrimination," said Trevor Tompson, director of The AP-NORC Center. "For example, women and men are divided in their perception of the role gender will play in the outcome. Women are more inclined to say that Clinton's gender is a disadvantage, while men tend to say the fact that she is a woman will help her chances of being elected."

Some of the poll's key findings are:

• ·      Seventy-five percent say women and men are equally good at being political leaders. Yet, 53 percent think women have fewer opportunities in politics than men.
• ·      The public is divided on whether Clinton's gender is an advantage, a hindrance or neither for her election prospects this fall. Men are more inclined to say her gender is a benefit to her campaign, and women are more likely to say it is a barrier.
• ·      Seven in 10 say the historic nature of Clinton's candidacy has no bearing on their own vote choice this year. Nearly 20 percent say the opportunity to elect the first woman president makes them more inclined to vote for Clinton in November, and about 10 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for her.
• ·      Overall, 75 percent think discrimination against women has decreased over the past 25 years or so, but at the same time an equal number of Americans say discrimination continues to be an issue today for many women.
• ·      Forty-nine percent of the public think it would help the economy if the upper management of companies were made up of equal numbers of men and women. Just 2 percent say it would be bad for the economy, while 48 percent think it would make no difference.
• ·      However, just 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women and the workplace is perceived as an uneven playing field for women. More than half of Americans think women have fewer opportunities for job advancement and 6 in 10 say they are at a disadvantage when it comes to salaries.
• ·      In fact, just under half of the women surveyed said they had experienced at least some type of job-related discrimination -- getting a job, receiving equal pay, or being appreciated and promoted at work -- because of their gender. Three in 10 men report having been discriminated against in some way at work because of their gender.
• ·      Six in 10 do not expect a Clinton Administration to have any effect on the level of discrimination against women, while a quarter anticipate a reduction in the amount of discrimination women would face if Clinton is elected.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160831223832.htm

Self-esteem gender gap more pronounced in western nations

Basic trends in self-esteem appear universal but can be shaped by culture

January 4, 2016

Science Daily/American Psychological Association

People worldwide tend to gain self-esteem as they grow older, and men generally have higher levels of self-esteem than women, but this self-esteem gender gap is more pronounced in Western industrialized countries, according to research.

"During the past two decades, a large number of studies on age and gender differences in self-esteem have found that men have higher self-esteem than women and that both men and women show age-graded increases in self-esteem. These robust findings would appear to provide a solid empirical foundation upon which researchers can develop their understanding of the mechanisms driving age and gender differences in self-esteem," said lead author Wiebke Bleidorn, PhD, of the University of California, Davis. "However, one issue potentially undermines this conclusion: Virtually all previous studies have only examined samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic countries. Our research aims to provide the first systematic cross-cultural examination of gender and age effects on self-esteem."

The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Bleidorn and her colleagues analyzed survey data from over 985,000 men and women ages 16-45 from 48 countries. The data were collected from July 1999 to December 2009 as part of the Gosling-Potter Internet Personality Project. The researchers compared self-reported self-esteem, gender and age across the 48 nations in their study.

In general, the researchers found that self-esteem tended to increase with age, from adolescence to adulthood, and that men at every age tended to have higher levels of self-esteem than women worldwide. When they broke the results down by country, they found some interesting results.

"Specifically, individualistic, prosperous, egalitarian, developed nations with higher gender equality had larger gender gaps in self-esteem than collectivist, poorer, developing nations with greater gender inequality," said Bleidorn. "This is likely the result of specific cultural influences that guide self-esteem development in men and women."

For instance, the gender differences were small in many Asian countries, such as Thailand, Indonesia and India, but were relatively larger in countries like the United Kingdom or the Netherlands.

What surprised the researchers most was, despite the cultural differences, the general trend across all the countries suggests that gender and age differences in self-esteem are not a Western idiosyncrasy, but can be observed in different cultures across the world.

"This remarkable degree of similarity implies that gender and age differences in self-esteem are partly driven by universal mechanisms; these can either be universal biological mechanisms such as hormonal influences or universal cultural mechanisms such as universal gender roles. However, universal influences do not tell the whole story," said Bleidorn. "The differences in magnitude and shape of gender and age differences in various countries provide strong evidence for culture-specific influences on the development of self-esteem in men and women."

These findings are important because up until now the bulk of research on self-esteem has been confined to industrialized, Western cultures where the gender gap is significantly greater, said Bleidorn. "This new research refines our understanding of how cultural forces may shape self-esteem, which, when worked out more fully, can help inform self-esteem theory and design interventions to promote or protect self-esteem."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104130822.htm

Women do ask for pay rises but don’t get them

September 5, 2016

Science Daily/University of Warwick
New research shows that women ask for wage rises just as often as men, but men are 25 per cent more likely to get a raise when they ask.

Using a randomly chosen sample of 4,600 workers across more than 800 employers, the research is the first to do a statistical test of the idea that women get paid less because they are not as pushy as men. The researchers found no support for the theory.

The authors of the study "Do Women Ask?" also examined the claim that female employees hold back for fear of upsetting their boss, and again found no evidence for this theory either.

Co-author Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics and Behavioural Science at the University of Warwick said: "We didn't know how the numbers would come out. Having seen these findings, I think we have to accept that there is some element of pure discrimination against women."

Various ideas have previously been suggested as to why women might be reluctant to ask for an increase in their pay packet. These include: women don't want to deviate from a perceived female stereotype, and they may fear being less popular at work.

Co-author Dr Amanda Goodall at Cass Business School said: "Ours is the first proper test of the reticent-female theory, and the evidence doesn't stand up."

When like-for-like men and women were compared, the men were a quarter more likely to be successful, obtaining a pay increase 20 per cent of the time. Only 16 per cent of females were successful when they asked.

The research uses data gathered in the Australian Workplace Relations Survey (AWRS) which covers the period 2013-14 which is a representative sample of Australian employees and workplaces. Professor Oswald said: "We realised that Australia was the natural test bed, because it is the only country in the world to collect systematic information on whether employees have asked for a rise."

The survey has the distinctive feature that it asks individuals a set of questions about whether their pay is set by negotiation with the company, whether they have successfully obtained a wage rise since joining the employer, whether they preferred not to attempt to negotiate a pay rise because they were concerned about their relationships, why they decided that, and about their levels of job satisfaction.

Using statistical methods, the authors' analysis shows that it is crucial to adjust for the number of hours worked (because part-time workers feel hesitant to 'ask'). The analysis also took into account the nature of the employer, the industry, and the characteristics and qualifications of workers.

Despite the dispiriting findings, the authors pinpointed one encouraging sign in the data -- young Australian female employees get pay hikes just as often as young Australian men.

Dr Goodall said: "This study potentially has an upside. Young women today are negotiating their pay and conditions more successfully than older females, and perhaps that will continue as they become more senior."

Science Daily/SOURCE :https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160905130017.htm